JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 25-3-2004 passed by Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act, 1985'), Durg in Special Case No. 1/2004. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Israiel alias Gontu has been convicted under Section 8(c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 years and to pay fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:- On 5-2-2004, P.S. Bais (PW-1) was posted as Station House Officer at Police Station Khamharia. On that date, he received information from a Mukhbir that the appellant had Ganja in his house and was engaged in selling the same illegally. He recorded the secret information as Mukhbir Suchana Panchnama vide Ex. P-1, entered it in Rojnamcha Sanha and communicated it to SDO(P) vide Ex. P-11. Thereafter, he went to the spot along with independent witnesses. When they reached the house of the appellant, he was present there. The appellant was informed about his right under Section 50 of the Act, 1985 vide Ex. P-2 and consent of the appellant regarding search was recorded vide Ex. P-3. Thereafter, P.S. Bais (PW-1) searched his house. Ganja was found in his house kept in two fertilizer bags. Identification of the recovered article was conducted. After physical verification, it was found that the recovered article was Ganja. Ganja was weighed on the spot. It was found that out of two fertilizer bags, one bag had contained 12 kg and another bag had contained 4.600 kg Ganja. Weight Panchnama was prepared vide Ex. P-5. Ganja was seized vide Ex. P-6. Sample of the seized Ganja was prepared separately. Thereafter, P.S. Bais (PW-1) arrested the appellant vide Ex. P-9 and he came back to Police Station Khamharia and registered First Information Report (Ex. P-8). Action taken report was sent to SDO(P), Bemetara and copy of First Information Report (Ex. P-8), Arrest Memo (Ex. P-9) and Seizure Memo (Ex. P-6) were sent to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara and receipt (Ex. P-10) was obtained in that regard. The seized Ganja and its sample were handed over to Malkhana Moharrir for safe custody. The same was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for examination vide Ex. P-14. Report (Ex. P-8), Arrest Memo (Ex. P-9) and Seizure Memo (Ex. P-6) were sent to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara and receipt (Ex. P-10) was obtained in that regard. The seized Ganja and its sample were handed over to Malkhana Moharrir for safe custody. The same was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for examination vide Ex. P-14. Report (Ex. P-23) was received therefrom vide Ex. P-24, in which, test of Ganja was found positive. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Special Judge under the Act, 1985, Durg, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 3. Shri Y.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no compliance of provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 55 of the Act, 1985. Ganja was not sealed by the Station House Officer before handing it over to Malkhana Moharrir. Sample was not taken properly. There is no evidence which could show that the seized articles and the samples were sealed properly by the seizing officer. The sample was sent to the FSL belatedly. There was no explanation therefor. Therefore, there is possibility of tampering of the samples. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. 4. On the contrary, Shri R.R. Sinha, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge do not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. Having heard rival contentions of the parties, I have perused the record of Special Case No. 1/2004. 6. The prosecution examined Station House Officer P.S. Bais (PW-1), Patwari Bhagwati Prasad Singh (PW-2), Head Constable Ramayan Prasad (PW-3), Raju Singh (PW-4), Shivdas (PW-5), Mohammad Akhlim (PW-6) and Vinod Sharma (PW-7). The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 7. Now, I shall examine whether provision of Section 42 of the Act, 1985 has been substantially complied with or not? 8. SHO P.S. Bais (PW-1) deposed that he received the secret information that the appellant had Ganja in his possession and was engaged in selling the same. He recorded the Mukhbir Suchana Panchnama vide Ex. P-1. He further deposed that the secret information was entered in Rojnamcha Sanha. Head Constable Ramayan Prasad (PW-3) deposed that on 5-2-2004, the information was received. SHO P.S. Bais (PW-1) deposed that he received the secret information that the appellant had Ganja in his possession and was engaged in selling the same. He recorded the Mukhbir Suchana Panchnama vide Ex. P-1. He further deposed that the secret information was entered in Rojnamcha Sanha. Head Constable Ramayan Prasad (PW-3) deposed that on 5-2-2004, the information was received. He had brought Rojnamcha Sanha Kramank 128 dated 5-2-2004, its original is Ex. P-17 and its copy is Ex. P-17A. 9. Looking to the evidence of SHO P.S. Bais (PW-1), Head Constable Ramayan Prasad (PW-3), Ex. P-1 and Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex. P-17A), it appears that SHO P.S. Bais (PW-1) had received the secret information, recorded it in Rojnamacha Sanha and prepared Mukhbir Suchana Panchnama (Ex. P-1) separately. P.S. Bais (PW-1) deposed that he transmitted the secret information to SDO(P), Bemetara vide Ex.P-11. Vinod Sharma (PW-7) deposed that on 5-2-2004, he was posted as Reader to SDO(P), Bemetara. On that date, he received Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama (Ex. P-1) vide Ex. P-11. He further deposed that when SDO(P) Shri S.N. Salaam came to the office, he had put up the Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama (Ex. P-1) before him. 10. Looking to the evidence of P.S. Bais (PW-1), Vinod Sharma (PW-7) and Ex.P-11, it appear a that SHO P.S. Bais (PW-1) had received the secret information, recorded it in Rojnamcha Sanha, prepared Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama separately and communicated the same to his superior authority. It is, therefore, clear that SHO P.S. Bais (PW-1) complied with the provision of Section 42 of the Act, 1985. 11. Now, I shall examine whether the provision of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 has been substantially complied with by the Investigating Officer or not and compliance of provision of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 is mandatory in the instant case? 12. According to Section 50 (1) of the Act, 1985, the officer, who is to search the accused, is required to inform the person about his right to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or by a Magistrate. If the person gives consent to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or before a Magistrate, he shall immediately be taken to the said officer or Magistrate. Otherwise, the search can be made by the concerned officer. The requirement of law has been held to be mandatory in nature and non-compliance thereof vitiates the trial. 13. If the person gives consent to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or before a Magistrate, he shall immediately be taken to the said officer or Magistrate. Otherwise, the search can be made by the concerned officer. The requirement of law has been held to be mandatory in nature and non-compliance thereof vitiates the trial. 13. SHO P.S. Bais (PW-1) deposed that he had given notice to the appellant for search vide Ex.P-2. The appellant consented to be searched by him. The consent of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-3. On making search of the house of the appellant after giving him notice before witnesses, Ganja was found under the cot in his room. The same was seized before witnesses. 14. On careful perusal of Section 50 of the Act, 1985, it is evident that when any officer duly authorized under Section 42 of the Act, 1985 is about to search any person under the provisions of Sections 41, 42 or Section 43 of the Act, 1985, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person, without unnecessary delay, to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 of the Act, 1985 or to the nearest Magistrate. In the instant case, P.S. Bais (PW-1) deposed that before making search, he had given notice to the appellant before witnesses for search by him or before a Gazetted Officer or before a Magistrate vide Ex.P-2. It bears his signature. The appellant gave his consent for search vide Ex.P-3. On making search of the house of the appellant after giving him notice before witnesses, Ganja was found in two fertilizers bags kept under the cot in his room. In Ex.P-2, it is mentioned that: ^^eq>s tkudkjh feyh gS fd vkids ?kj es voS/k xkatk gS rFkk xkatk dks voS/k :Ik ls fcdzh djrs gS blfy, vkidks vf/kdkj gS vki crkos dh vki vius ?kj dh vkaxu dh xkatk ds lca/k es ryk’kh eq>ls djok,axs ;k jktif=r vf/kdkjh ;k eftLVªsV ls dkjZokbZ djok,axsA^^ 15. Looking to the evidence of P.S. Bais (PW-1) and Ex. P-2 and P-3, it appears that the appellant was informed about his right under Section 50 of the Act, 1985 and the consent of the appellant was recorded vide Ex. P-3. 16. I have gone through the evidence of SHO P.S. Bais (PW-1). Looking to the evidence of P.S. Bais (PW-1) and Ex. P-2 and P-3, it appears that the appellant was informed about his right under Section 50 of the Act, 1985 and the consent of the appellant was recorded vide Ex. P-3. 16. I have gone through the evidence of SHO P.S. Bais (PW-1). It appears that he informed the appellant about his right that he was entitled to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or before a Magistrate or before him vide Ex. P-2 and the appellant gave his consent in writing vide Ex. P-3 to be searched by him. From the evidence of SHO P.S. Bais (PW-1), it is clearly established that substantial compliance of the provision of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 was done by SHO P.S. Bais (PW-1). In the instant case, personal search of the appellant was not made. Only house of the appellant was searched. 17. In Madanlal and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003) 7 SCC 465 and Megh Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2003) 8 SCC 666 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a bare reading of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 shows that it only applies in case of personal search of a person. It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises. The language of Section 50 is implicitly clear that the search has to be in relation to a person as contrasted to search of premises, vehicle or articles. The position was settled beyond doubt by the Constitution Bench in State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 . 18. In view of the above settled legal position, Section 50 of the Act, 1985 would not be applicable when search is made of a house or a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises. In the instant case, the search was made of the house of the appellant and Ganja was found in fertilizers bags, therefore, Section 50 of the Act, 1985 is not applicable. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence of SHO P.S. Bais (PW-1) is not supported by the evidence of independent witnesses, therefore, on the basis of evidence of SHO P.S. Bais (PW-1), conviction of the appellant cannot be based. 20. In Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs. Vs. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence of SHO P.S. Bais (PW-1) is not supported by the evidence of independent witnesses, therefore, on the basis of evidence of SHO P.S. Bais (PW-1), conviction of the appellant cannot be based. 20. In Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs. Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: "25. In our judgment, the above proposition does not lay down correct law on the point. It is well settled that credibility of witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. It is quite possible that in a given case, a court of law may not base conviction solely on the evidence of the complainant or a police official but it is not the law that police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force. There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of police officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence. 26. It is not necessary to refer to various decisions on the point. We may, however, state that before more than half a century, in Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 , Venkatarama Ayyar, J. stated: (AIR p. 230, para 40) “40. ... The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as of other persons, and it is not a judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds therefor. Such an attitude could do neither credit to the magistracy nor good to the public. It can only run down the prestige of the police administration.” 27. In Tahir v. State (Delhi), (1996) 3 SCC 338 , dealing with a similar question, Dr. Such an attitude could do neither credit to the magistracy nor good to the public. It can only run down the prestige of the police administration.” 27. In Tahir v. State (Delhi), (1996) 3 SCC 338 , dealing with a similar question, Dr. A.S. Anand, J. (as His Lordship then was) stated: (See p. 341, para 6) "6. ... Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form the bSHOs of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case." 21. In the instant case, Panch Witness Shivdas (PW-5), who is witness of seizure memo (Ex.P-6) and Mohammd Akhlim (PW-6), who is witness of weight panchnama (Ex.P-5) did not support the case of the prosecution. Rajusingh (PW-4) supported the case of the prosecution to some extent. Rajusingh (PW-4), Shivdas (PW-5) and Mohammad Akhlim (PW-6) admitted their signatures in relevant documents. 22. P.S. Bais (PW-1) deposed that Ganja was recovered from the room of the house of the appellant. Recovered Ganja was kept in two fertilizers bags. The Ganja was kept in the bags in the form of small pocket. The Ganja was weighed on the spot. On weighing, it was found that out of two fertilizers bags, one bag had contained 12 kg and another bag had contained 4.600 kg Ganja. Rajusingh (PW-4) deposed that the Ganja was recovered from the courtyard (Aangan) of the house of the appellant and Mohammad Akhlim (PW-6) had weighed the Ganja. He further deposed that one bag had contained 12 kg and other had contained 4.600 kg Ganja and weight panchnama (Ex. P-5) was prepared. P.S. Bais (PW-1) deposed that he seized the Ganja vide Ex.P-6 and sealed on the spot and he affixed the seal impression on the seizure memo. He further deposed that he arrested the appellant vide Ex.P-9, took the appellant along with Ganja to Police Station Khamharia and registered First Information Report (Ex.P-8). Copy of the First Information Report (Ex.P-8), Arrest Memo (Ex.P-9) and Seizure Memo (Ex.P-7) were sent to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara for information. Information of arrest of the appellant was sent to Mohammad Gaffar vide Ex. P-13. Copy of the First Information Report (Ex.P-8), Arrest Memo (Ex.P-9) and Seizure Memo (Ex.P-7) were sent to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara for information. Information of arrest of the appellant was sent to Mohammad Gaffar vide Ex. P-13. He further deposed that he had handed over the property to the Malkhana Moharrir for its safe custody. 23. Head Constable Ramayan Prasad (PW-3) deposed that he was posted as Malkhana Moharrir at Police Station Khamharia. He further deposed that he had brought the Malkhana Register. In Malkhana Register, at serial number 10, entry of the same was made which is Ex.P-20A. 24. Looking to the evidence of P.S. Bais (PW-1), Head Constable Ramayan Prasad (PW-3), Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P-20A) and Ex.P-12, it is clear that the seized Ganja and its sample were handed over by P.S. Bais (PW-1) to Malkhana Moharrir for their safe custody. P.S. Bais (PW-1) deposed that the seized sample was sent to the FSL, Raipur for chemical examination vide Ex.P-14. Ramayan Prasad (PW-3) also deposed that 2 sample packets were sent to the FSL, Raipur for chemical examination. Acknowledgment thereof is Ex.P-15. In Ex.P-15, it is mentioned that the article was received from Constable No. 1311, Devchandra, P.S. Khamharia on 10-2-2004. In the FSL report (Ex.P-23), it is mentioned that the article was received from Constable No. 1311, Devchandra on 10-2-2004. In Ex.P-23, it is mentioned as follows: ^^mijksDr fo”k;kfdar ls lacf/kr lhycan nks iSdsV vkj{kd dz- 1311 nsopUnz Fkkuk [kEgfj;k }kjk bl dk;kZy; es fnukad 10-2-2004 dks izkIr gq;s tks , ,aM+ ch ls fpfgar ik;s x;s rFkk bu ij ikbZ xbZ lhys] uewuk lhy ds ln`’; ikbZ xbZ^^ 25. It appears that Ganja was seized and samples thereof were prepared on 5-2-2004. Samples were sent to the FSL, Raipur on 7-2-2004 and the same were received on 10-2-2004, i.e., after 5 days of the seizure. 26. In Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2011 SC 964 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "14. ......... The trial court as well as the High Court, on examination of the entire material, concluded that there was sufficient independent evidence produced by the prosecution regarding the completion of link evidence. Therefore, the delay in sending the sample parcel to the office of Chemical Examiner pales into insignificance. ......... The trial court as well as the High Court, on examination of the entire material, concluded that there was sufficient independent evidence produced by the prosecution regarding the completion of link evidence. Therefore, the delay in sending the sample parcel to the office of Chemical Examiner pales into insignificance. We are of the considered opinion that mere delay in sending the sample of the narcotic to the office of the Chemical Examiner would not be sufficient to conclude that the sample has been tampered with. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that the delay, if any, was wholly unintentional. This Court had occSHOon to deal with a similar issue, in the case of Balbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2009) 15 SCC 795 . The Court made the following observations: “As far as delay in sending the samples is concerned, we find the said contention untenable in law. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of this Court in Hardip Singh case ( AIR 2009 SC 432 : 2008 AIR SCW 7514) wherein there was a gap of 40 days between seizure and sending the sample to the chemical examiner. Despite the said fact the Court held that in view of cogent evidence that opium was seized from the appellant and the seals put on the sample were intact till it was handed over to the chemical examiner, delay itself is not fatal to the prosecution case." ………………..” 27. Therefore, delay of mere 5 days in sending the sample to the office of the Chemical Examiner would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 28. The defence has not been able to prove that the seal put on the seized article and the samples was, in any manner, tampered with before the samples were examined by the Chemical Examiner. There was a delay of mere 5 days in sending the samples to the FSL, Raipur. It is not proved as to how the aforesaid delay of 5 days affected the said examination when it could not be proved that the seal of the samples was, in any manner, tampered with. There was a delay of mere 5 days in sending the samples to the FSL, Raipur. It is not proved as to how the aforesaid delay of 5 days affected the said examination when it could not be proved that the seal of the samples was, in any manner, tampered with. In the circumstance, when the seal was found intact at the time of examination by the Chemical Examiner and the said fact was recorded by him in his report, mere delay in sending the samples to the Chemical Examiner itself would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 29. Ganja was seized from the house of the appellant and the samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner in a properly sealed condition and the test thereof was found as Ganja. 30. Therefore, in the instant case, from the above, it is apparent that provisions of Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the Act, 1985 are substantially complied with. I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge. 31. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.